Thursday, December 18, 2014

STEMM Report (preliminary)

Science Concepts and Formulas involved in the ROV project (STEM)
            While working on our senior capstone design projects, we have to take into account many factors other than technical ones. These include scientific concepts. Each project and each part of the projects all have to take into account different scientific concepts and formulas that can either make or break them. For my ROV project, or t least my part of it, I need to take into account concepts such as water physics and most importantly, buoyancy. Water physics is important because of the fact that the ROV has to travel through water. If it is not properly hydrodynamic, it might not run well in the testing pool or even run well at all. The ROV needs to be capable of moving through water horizontally in both directions and vertically as well. If the ROV is not able to do this, the project would be a bust. This has formulas in it that involve forces and also the weight and density of objects in water.

            The other science concept that I must take into account is buoyancy. Buoyancy is always a factor when you are putting something in water. The ROV we are creating needs to have just the right buoyancy. It needs to be close to neutrally buoyant but it should be a little more positive to account for the weight of the block we will be picking up with the ROV. This is required because if the ROV is too buoyant, it will not submerge and if it is not buoyant enough, it will not be able to surface. With this concept, the buoyancy formula is the main one here along with weights in water and how much volume can offset that weight.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Systems Engineering II: SeaPerch ROV Challenge
Diving into the SeaPerch ROV
SANDY HOOK, NJ DECEMBER 10, 2014-An ROV team from the Marine Academy of Science and Technology will be testing their prototype ROV that they have build in their Systems Engineering II class their senior year. They will have to use their ROV to dive down into a pool and collect 3 different sized blocks using a claw attached to the main hull. The ROV will be controlled with a Playstation controller and wired to perform all of the tasks it needs to navigate the Neptune Community pool.
The Student in question is Guido Monteleone. He is a senior at the Marine Academy of Science and Technology and he currently lives in Long Branch, NJ. For the ROV project, he is the structural or mechanical engineer. He is responsible for the design, the purchase of parts, and construction of the main body or hull for the ROV. He is also responsible for attaching all of the components needed to run the ROV.  He has a very important part of the ROV it turns out. He is responsible for the unit as a whole. The unit is dependent on his part. Guido and his two partners Andrew Schussler and Noah Grant are building the project for their systems engineering class. Andrew is responsible for the electronics while Noah is responsible for the claw used to grab the objects. The project will be tested at the Neptune Community pool in Neptune, NJ. The presentation for the project will be given on January 21, 2014 at 12:40 PM.

(picture was here, did not download properly)

Problem Being Solved
The group has found a very interesting problem for them to solve. For years when a ship or airplane crashed or sank into the ocean, they needed to send a human salvage diver to hopefully gain access to the wreck and retrieve items if possible. This was a dangerous task for several reasons. For starters, you are putting a human life at risk. They might get caught in the wreck if they can even get into it at all. It is also a very high-risk low reward situation. You might not even find what you are looking for and have to go down again. This is where ROVs come in. They pose no threat to the people using them and they can serve a number of purposes. They can be used for research, salvage diving, and even in military situations. The ROV can be used to safely navigate the wreck or area that is inaccessible to human divers with no risk except losing the ROV, which is a lot better than losing a life. That is what they intend to accomplish with this solution of theirs. They intend to end the need for human salvage divers to lower the risk of loss of life.
To sum up, this is the SeaPerch ROV challenge. These three students: Guido Monteleone, Andrew Schussler, and Noah Grant are building an Remotely Operated Vehicle or ROV to replace the need for salvage divers and reduce the risk of losing a life or lives. Guido will be designing and producing the structural body or chassis of the ROV that everything will be attached to or built onto. They will be testing this project at the Neptune Community pool sometime in late March or April. This project ultimately has good intentions and it will be interesting to sea how well they can accomplish what they intend to.
For more details about the SeaPerch ROV project in Sandy Hook, NJ, contact gmonteleone@ctemc.org or visit The Marine Academy of Science and Technology at rovmechanicalengineer.blogspot.com.
About the Marine Academy of Science and Technology
The Marine Academy of Science and Technology (MAST) is a co-ed four-year high school, grades 9-12; one of five career academies administered by the Monmouth County Vocational School District. The Marine Academy is fully accredited by the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges and offers small classes with close personal attention. The Marine Academy was founded in 1981 as a part-time program, which has since grown to become a full-time diploma-granting program. The school's curriculum focuses on marine sciences and marine technology/engineering. The MAST program requires each student to participate in the Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (NJROTC) in lieu of Physical Education.
MAST is located in the Fort Hancock Historic Area at the tip of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The school campus is located adjacent to the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, the oldest working lighthouse in the country, in thirteen newly renovated buildings, within walking distance of several beaches. The "Blue Sea" is a 65-foot research vessel owned and operated by the Marine Academy and berthed at the U.S. Coast Guard Station, Sandy Hook. The vessel is used in all facets of the program.
-###-
For additional information:
Marine Academy of Science and Technology
732-749-3360

Guido Monteleone: gmonteleone@ctemc.org
John Cuttrell, V: 732-291-0995 

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Developmental Work (cont.)

Buoyancy Calculations

Part Masses:


Total Weight (ROV and Components)-13.366 lbs (6,062 g)

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Preliminary ROV Testing Procedures


Testing Procedures
  1. Meet With Team and Mrs. Green to discuss project
  2. Design problem situation and finalize it
  3. Start to design individual parts of project
  4. Finish designs and convene with team
  5. Finalize drawings and designs
  6. Research parts, materials, and supplies
  7. Inquire about those items
  8. Order items from desired companies
  9. Make sure all parts were delivered
  10. Proceed with building individual parts of the project
  11. Test hull by placing it in water
  12. Make adjustments if needed
  13. Commence final testing
  14. Prepare for challenge at the Neptune Aquatic
  15. Arrive at testing facility (Neptune pool)
  16. Make sure joints are completely sealed and connected to each other
  17. Make sure that appendages are securely connected to main body of the ROV
  18. Make sure that there are no loose pieces or parts before placing in the water
  19. Redo the buoyancy calculations to check if buoyancy of the system is correct
  20. Place the ROV into the water
  21. See how the ROV sits in the water (too buoyant, not buoyant enough, neutral)

Developmental Work (cont.)

Motor

Brushless Motors

  • work well underwater and even in saltwater
  • a little more pricey than a brush motor
  • more efficient 
2213N 800Kv Brushless Motor
  • Kv-800
  • Mass(g)-53
  • Max Amps-9.5
  • Max volts-11
  • Thrust(g)-690
  • RPM/min-7250
  • Total Length(mm)-48
can be found for around $10.25





Developmental Work

ROV Propulsion Parts

Propeller:

Graupner 2308.65 propeller (cannot be used because it is economically unfeasible)

  • very efficient
  • good thrust 
  • 3 blades
Thrust(g)-1100
Diameter(mm)-65
Blades-3
Pitch(mm)-34


3D Printed Version of Propeller
  • 2 blades
  • in shroud
  • 3D printer inventor file can be produced at Camp Evans or any 3D printer



Monday, November 3, 2014

Model of Final Solution (Orthographic)

2D Drawing of the Solution




2D Orthographic View of Final Solution (AutoCAD)




Controlled Convergences

Structural Design


Categories
Triangular Prism
Cylinder
Cube
Rectangular Prism
Cost Effective
3
4
5
5
Easy Assembly
2
4
5
5
Durable
5
3
4
4
Sturdy
4
4
5
5
Mounting Ability
2
3
4
5
Total
16
18
23
24
Move Forward?
No
No
No
Yes

Building Materials


Categories
PVC
Metal Tubing
Wood
CPVC
Cost Effective
5
3
4
3
Easy Assembly
5
3
2
5
Durable
5
5
3
5
Waterproof
5
5
3
4
Easily Workable
4
3
4
3
Total
24
19
16
20
Move Forward?
Yes
No
No
No

Scale: 1-5 Five being the best and one being the worst

Rational Report



Rationale Report for ROV Alternate Solutions
            During my research that I conducted on my portion of the ROV design and building process, I came up with several alternate solutions. These alternate solutions are the ideas and designs that I am choosing from to design my ROV after. They are a triangular prism shape, a cylindrical shape, a cube shape, and a rectangular prism shape. These solutions are the result of lots of research and contact with my mentors. The next step is to choose the best solution to move forward with and why.
           The first solution is the triangular prism shape. ROVs come in all shapes and sizes and triangular is no exception. The triangular shape has some advantages. It could possibly aid in the water physics behind propulsion because the point on the triangle could aid in being hydrodynamic. This allows for easier movement in the water. This design also has some cons to it. Because of the unusual degree measures of the angles for the triangle, it would be hard to find pieces already made. This would mean that they would have to be specially ordered or made with a 3D printer or other means of creating or molding plastics. This solution while very hydrodynamic would be costly and hard to manufacture and build if done incorrectly. Some of these problems are fixed with the next alternate solution.
            The next alternate solution is the shape of a cylinder. Cylindrical shaped ROVs have been used several times before, even by the US Navy to aid in the destruction and combat of mines. This shape has the unique property of providing the least drag out of all of the solutions. The rounded sides allow the vehicle to move through the water with the least resistance. This allows it to move easily in the water using the motors to propel it. It also has parts that are easily obtainable which cuts down on cost. This shape comes with its own set of disadvantages as well. The cylindrical shape poses the problem of finding a place to attach the instruments and motors onto. But if done correctly, this is a minimal problem. The real problem is that of buoyancy. The round shape makes it hard to get the ROV to sit correctly in the water. The next ROV does not have this problem with buoyancy or of motor attachment.
               The next ROV that I designed was the cube shaped design. The cube is a 1’x1’x1’ design and is made out of PVC piping. This design is a very simplistic one but is easy to make and produce. The parts are easy to find and buy and are not that expensive. This cuts down on the cost and the struggle of trying to find parts. It also has plenty of space to attach motors and the claw appendage. However, even with all of these advantages, it does have some bad qualities. First of all, it is not as hydrodynamic as the other two solutions before this. A square is obviously not as dynamic as a cylinder or a triangle because it just has the same six faces on all sides and not curves or pointed edges. It is also a smaller design than the others. The cylinder is a little elongated and the triangle is as well. This could be a hindrance or an advantage depending on how you look at it. I believe that the next solution offers the best of all of the solutions in one package.
           The next solution is similar to the last one in that it keeps the basic cube shape; it is just elongated by a half foot. I would call it a rectangular prism shape. The design is a 1-foot tall, 1-foot wide, and 1.5 feet long. This provides the shape needed to attach the motors and the elongation needed to stabilize the structure. This shape also does not have most of the disadvantages that the others do such as the rolling problem with the cylinder or the part problem of the triangular. This cuts down on cost and adds to this solutions viability. This shape design, while it provides many advantages over the others, it isn’t without its fair share of flaws. It is still not as hydrodynamic as the cylinder or the triangular shaped design. This could cause me to have to use better motors to propel it through the water.
            Out of the four shapes discussed in this document, there is one I am moving forward with. This design is that of the rectangular prism. This design allows for motors, propellers, the mechanical claw, and anything else like the electronics to be attached easily and with plenty of room so nothing is tight together. The design does not cost as much as some of the others would. The parts are also pretty easy to find and put together. Not many adjustments would be needed to fit them together and putting holes in the PVC to attach parts would also be very easy. My mentor was the one who recommended this shape to me because he built an ROV in this shape and he told me it worked very well for him. That is why I am moving forward with this design and am now going to do research on building this part and the parts I need such as PVC piping.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Alternate Solutions

Alternate Solutions


Of the solutions that I came up with during the brainstorming period are viable and good solutions. the few that I have deemed to have these qualities are now my alternate solutions.

The first alternate solution is the triangular prism shaped ROV. This offers a decent amount of stability and is a very viable shape. There are several problems however. First it is hard to find parts in any material for this shape. Another problem is that it would be very hard to find good spots to put the motors and claw onto to attach them.

Another solution choice is to make an ROV in a cylindrical shape. This shape is a very difficult one to support. It has some stability and is not to hard to find parts for, but it has the same problem as the triangular one in that it would be hard to attach appendages and motors to it.

The next two solutions are very similar. They are a cube shape and a rectangular prism shape. These two are the most viable ones because of the fact that they are very, very sturdy and have plenty of places to mount items onto. These two also have parts that are very easy to find and are not too expensive (depending on the material). On the right I have provided the drawings with dimensions of the rectangular prism shape that I have thought is the most viable choice.

Another part of the alternate solutions that is important are the materials that will be used in creating the main body and mounting pieces for the ROV. Some of my options include the obvious PVC piping, wood, and metal. PVC is a very viable option. It has been used in the past and is very reliable and sturdy. Wood is a hard choice to go with because, while it light be sturdy and relatively cheap, it is hard to make it buoyant in the right way so that it could submerge easily. Metal is also another very viable option because it is very sturdy and can be used to easily have items attached to it. The problem; however, is that it can be expensive, hard to obtain, and it is not easy to work with unless you have the proper tools.

Specifications and Limitations

Specifications and Limitations


The solution must be able to support every component on it plus the payload
  • ·      Limited to lightweight, waterproof, durable material
  • ·      Limited to workable materials like PVC, wood, plastic, metal
  • ·      Limited to material that can be hollowed out to hold electronics
  • ·      Limited to tools in workshop
  • ·      Limited with capital

The solution must be able to withstand the water and force of pressure
  • ·      Limited to workable materials like PVC, wood, plastic
  • ·      Limited to being neutrally buoyant
  • ·      Limited to tools in workshop
  • ·      Limited with capital

The solution must have the ability to submerge and resurface in the water
  • ·      Limited to workable materials
  • ·      Limited to tools in workshop
  • ·      Limited with motors that can be used
  • ·      Limited with capital
  • ·      Limited to being neutrally buoyant


The solution must be able to be fitted with equipment such as cameras and devices
  • ·      Limited to materials
  • ·      Limited to tools in workshop
  • ·      Limited to space on body
  • ·      Limited to being neutrally buoyant
  • ·      Limited to types of attaching methods
  • ·      Limited to being able to withstand rough conditions

The solution has to be built and tested in the time allotted (next year)
  • ·      Limited to materials
  • ·      Limited to time
  • ·      Limited to tools in workshop
  • ·      Limited to the intricacy of the design
  • ·      Limited to the skills and knowledge each of us have
  • ·      Limited to methods for building chassis